Foundational Principle By Korsgaard: The Morality Of
Why is humanity considered to be so exclusive that humans are intended to have moral status and non-humans do not? Answering this question will not only help us understand the moral obligations and nature of human beings, it will also enable us to distinguish them from the rest of the living world. While humans are different from non-human animals in many ways, there are numerous similarities between them as well, owing to their similar basic needs and practices. Therefore the differences between them do not provide a logical defense to humans for denying non-human animals moral consideration. Killing non-human animals for food is never morally permissible because these animals, like us, possess intrinsic moral worth. Though they do not possess
…show more content…
Kant framed the doctrine of rights, which he believed were valid for both humans and nonhuman animals. The first of these is the right to claim property and stated that we could not use the natural resources without getting the permission of everyone who might compete with us for its use. Kant thought it would be inconsistent with our freedom, and therefore, there must be an agreement to allow every individual to claim ownership. The second right, which Korsgaard supported, is the right of individuals to be at that place where nature or chance has placed them. And the third right is the right to common ownership. Kant pointed out how God has given us earth and animals and plants as gifts, and therefore, it is our duty to share land and all natural resources with animals. Considering the killing spree of animals for food, Kant gave his most vital principle towards animal ethics, as the right of animals against humanity. This right suggests that, since animals are also possessors of earth alongside humans, they have the right to oppose the humans to save their freedom. Kant recommended that when we decide to act as per any principle, we should question ourselves rationally whether everyone would act the way we want to act, and whether our actions respect the goals of individuals rather than merely using them for personal benefits. Kant stated that our actions must be derived from our understanding of the rights of every individual and the sense of equality amongst all living beings, which was accepted by Korsgaard. He believed that an act is morally worthy, if it fulfils one’s duty and doesn’t take a human or animal as mean to achieve it, thereby making it universally
Kant framed the doctrine of rights, which he believed were valid for both humans and nonhuman animals. The first of these is the right to claim property and stated that we could not use the natural resources without getting the permission of everyone who might compete with us for its use. Kant thought it would be inconsistent with our freedom, and therefore, there must be an agreement to allow every individual to claim ownership. The second right, which Korsgaard supported, is the right of individuals to be at that place where nature or chance has placed them. And the third right is the right to common ownership. Kant pointed out how God has given us earth and animals and plants as gifts, and therefore, it is our duty to share land and all natural resources with animals. Considering the killing spree of animals for food, Kant gave his most vital principle towards animal ethics, as the right of animals against humanity. This right suggests that, since animals are also possessors of earth alongside humans, they have the right to oppose the humans to save their freedom. Kant recommended that when we decide to act as per any principle, we should question ourselves rationally whether everyone would act the way we want to act, and whether our actions respect the goals of individuals rather than merely using them for personal benefits. Kant stated that our actions must be derived from our understanding of the rights of every individual and the sense of equality amongst all living beings, which was accepted by Korsgaard. He believed that an act is morally worthy, if it fulfils one’s duty and doesn’t take a human or animal as mean to achieve it, thereby making it universally